NGUYEN and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT - [2020] WASAT 13

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: ROAD TRAFFIC (ADMINISTRATION) REGULATIONS 2014 (WA)
CITATION:   NGUYEN and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT [2020] WASAT 13
MEMBER:   MS C BARTON, MEMBER
HEARD:   9 DECEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   23 JANUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   CC 1478 of 2019
BETWEEN:   DZULANG HUY NGUYEN
Applicant
AND
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Respondent

Catchwords:

Road traffic - Application for T extension to driver's licence - Good character - Moral quality - Conviction for stealing as an agent - Offence of dishonesty - Change in applicant's circumstances - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA)
Road Traffic (Administration) Regulations 2014 (WA), reg 32(1)
Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Regulations 2014 (WA), reg 11, reg 12(2), reg 12(3), reg 12(7), reg 12(7)(c), reg 25, reg 72
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17, s 27, s 29(1), s 29(3), s 32, s 32(1), s 32(2)(a), s 32(2)(b)

Result:

Application successful

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Ms C Hoskins

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	Department of Transport - Legal and Legislative Services

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Bekhit and Department of Transport [2016] WASAT 108
Chowdhury and Department of Transport [2012] WASAT 128
Costello and Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2009] WASAT 188
Mohamed v Director General ‑ Department of Transport [2010] WASC 375
Sammut v AVM Holdings Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] WASC 27
Tavelli v Johnson (unreported, WASC, Library No 960693
Upton and Director General of Transport [2012] WASAT 63

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

Mr Dzulang Huy Nguyen (applicant) applied to the Department of Transport (Department) on 9 July 2019 for an extension T endorsement (T extension) to his motor vehicle driver's licence 3786481. A T extension entitles the holder to carry passengers for reward.
The applicant has a criminal record. On 23 November 2018, the applicant was convicted of the offence of stealing as an agent and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months (2018 offence).
As the licensing authority for Western Australia, the Department must ensure that applicants for a T extension satisfy the criteria set out in reg 12(7) of the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Regulations 2014 (WA) (Regulations). One criterion is that an applicant for a T extension is of good character.
On 22 July 2019, a delegate of the Department refused to grant the applicant a T extension because he did not consider the applicant to be of good character. The 2018 offence formed the basis for the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a T extension.
The Department's position is that the 2018 offence is serious in nature and is demonstrative of a propensity for dishonesty, being a fundamental consideration when determining whether a person is of good character. Following a request by the applicant for an internal review, the decision to refuse the T extension was upheld on 8 August 2019 (Department's decision).
The applicant seeks a review of the Department's decision under reg 32(1) of the Road Traffic (Administration) Regulations 2014 (WA) (AdministrationRegulations).

Issue for determination

The issue for determination by the Tribunal is as follows:
1.Is the applicant of the requisite 'good character' to hold a T extension?

The Tribunal's review jurisdiction

Regulation 32(1) of the Administration Regulations confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review the Department's decision. By reason of s 17 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), the application to review the Department's decision falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction.
In exercising the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, the Tribunal is to review the Department's decision by way of a hearing de novo for the purposes of producing the correct and preferable decision on the basis of the information and evidence before the Tribunal at the time of the review (s 27 of the SAT Act). In conducting the review, the Tribunal is not limited to the material before the respondent, as the original decision-maker, but may consider new material (s 27 of the SAT Act).
All of the functions and discretions conferred by the enabling Act on the original decision‑maker are conferred on the Tribunal (s 29(1) of the SAT Act). Section 29(3) of the SAT Act confers specific power on the Tribunal to, amongst other orders, set aside the original decision, affirm that decision or vary that decision.
The Tribunal is not bound to apply the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), the rules of evidence, or any practices and procedures of courts of record (s 32(2)(a) of the SAT Act), but is bound by the rules of natural justice (s 32(1) of the SAT Act) and 'is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities' (s 32(2)(b) of the SAT Act). The more flexible procedure provided for by s 32 of the SAT Act, however, does require that Tribunal decisions are made on the basis of evidence that has probative force: see Sammut v AVM Holdings Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] WASC 27 at [40].

Conduct of proceedings

The Tribunal made standard orders to facilitate the filing of statements of issues, facts and contentions, relevant documents, and witness statements.
The Department provided to the Tribunal an indexed bundle of documents dated 2 October 2019 which included:
1.applicant's T extension application dated 9 July 2019;
2.a statement of material facts for the 2018 offence;
3.National Police Certificate and a certified copy of history for court – criminal and traffic;
4.refusal of application for T extension including reasons for decision dated 22 July 2019;
5.internal review application and file, including the applicant's internal review submission dated 3 August 2019 and the Department's reasons for decision dated 8 August 2019; and
6.the transcript of sentencing proceedings for the 2018 offence.
The Department filed a witness statement of Mr Christopher Oxer, who gave evidence before the Tribunal. Mr Oxer is the Compliance Services Manager in the Driver and Vehicle Services business unit of the Department, and a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Department for the purpose of internal review under reg 72 of the Regulations.
The applicant provided a number of documents with his application to the Tribunal, including evidence of his current employment, the statement of material facts and suspended imprisonment order for the 2018 offence, and copies of the following certificates:
1.Statement of Attainment in competencies for 'Certificate III in Driving Operations' (Miro Training Centre) 1 August 2019;
2.Statement of Attainment 'Provide First Aid' (Just Careers Training) 3 August 2019;
3.Statement of Attainment 'Conduct Rigid Haul Truck Operations' (RMS Training & Recruitment) 10 May 2019;
4.Statement of Attainment 'Demonstrate first attack firefighting equipment' (Aveling) 31 July 2019;
5.Statement of Attainment 'Drive Heavy Rigid Vehicle' (Makene) 20 June 2019;
6.Statement of Attainment 'Work safely at heights' (Just Careers Training) 30 March 2019;
7.Statement of Attainment 'Enter and work in confined spaces' (Just Careers Training) 30 March 2019;
8.'Certificate IV in Retail Management' (Challenger Institute of Technology) 17 December 2009;
9.'Advanced Certificate of Engineering (Mechanical)' (Central Metropolitan College of TAFE) February 1999; and
10.'Associate Diploma of Engineering (Mechanical)' (Central Metropolitan College of TAFE) February 1999.
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a witness statement of Mr Christopher Fernandes and called both Mr Fernandes and a recruiter from the applicant's employer Techforce Personnel Pty Ltd (Techforce), Mr Alex Jane, to give evidence.

The statutory framework

A driver's licence does not authorise the licence holder to drive a motor vehicle when it is being used for the purpose of carrying passengers for reward, either in a taxi or in any other circumstance: reg 11 of the Regulations. The CEO of the Department may endorse a driver's licence to give the authorisation referred to in reg 11: reg 12(2) of the Regulations.
Pursuant to reg 12(3) of the Regulations, the endorsement must show that the driver's licence includes:
(a)extension T, to indicate that the driving authorised by the licence includes that driving when it is for the purpose of carrying passengers for reward but, if the driving is at a time when the licence holder has not reached 21 years of age, only in a taxi; or
(b)extension F, to indicate that the driving authorised by the licence includes that driving when it is for the purpose of carrying passengers for reward except in a taxi.
Under reg 12(7) of the Regulations, the CEO may grant a T or F extension if, upon payment of the relevant application fee by the applicant, the CEO is satisfied that the applicant:
(a) has, for a period of at least 3 years or periods adding up to at least 3 years, held a relevant driving authorisation; and
(b)has reached 20 years of age; and
(c)is of good character; and
(d)is mentally and physically fit to drive a motor vehicle for the purposes of carrying passengers for reward.
The CEO may refuse to grant a driver's licence to a person if the CEO has reason to believe that the person is not of good character. Regulation 25 of the Regulations provides:
Some grounds for refusing to grant driver's licence
The CEO may refuse to grant a driver's licence to a person if the CEO has reason to believe that the person ‑
(a)is not of good character; or
(b)suffers from a mental or physical condition (which may include a dependence on drugs or alcohol) that is likely to, or treatment for which is likely to, impair the person's ability to control a motor vehicle; or
(c)is disqualified under a foreign law, as defined in section 15(1), from being authorised to drive; or
(d)should not hold a driver's licence because of the number or nature of the person's convictions for –
(i)offences under any road law; or
(ii)offences under laws referred to in paragraph (c) that are similar in substance to offences under any road law.

Material facts relating to the 2018 offence and conviction

On 23 November 2018, the applicant was convicted of stealing $26,047.56 in money received by direction between 5 September 2017 and 6 October 2017. The stolen funds were the property of Australia Postal Corporation, trading as Australia Post. At the time of the 2018 offence, the applicant ran the Wattleup Newsagency and Post Office at 1048 Rockingham Road, Wattleup. As part of his business, the applicant operated an Australia Post outlet as a licensee. He had been a licensee for Australia Post since 2007.
Under the licensee agreement with Australia Post, the applicant was permitted to operate a licensed post office and accept payments from customers on behalf of Australia Post. The payments were received in the form of cash or EFTPOS (electronic funds transfer point of sale). The terms of the licence entitled the applicant to a commission for each transaction processed on behalf of Australia Post but the applicant was not entitled to the balance of that sum, which remained the property of Australia Post.
On 5 October 2017, Australia Post conducted a cash audit which identified a cash deficiency of $26,047.56. The applicant was present during the audit and told the auditor that he had used some of the cash balance to pay suppliers and other costs associated with the business. The applicant subsequently repaid the total deficiency to Australia Post.
The applicant was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months. During the sentencing hearing, the State prosecutor conceded that a suspended sentence could be appropriate in the circumstances because the money had been repaid and the offence was essentially a 'one‑off aberration'.
The District Court judge stated the following in his Honour's sentencing remarks (ts 12 and 13, 23 November 2018):
You seem to have had some difficulty understanding how you committed a criminal offence in that way but hopefully I will explain that to you. In any event, I accept by your plea of guilty that you take full responsibility for it. And I also accept that you're remorseful for your actions.
I accept that they were out of character and I accept that you've done all that you have been able to do to make amends by repaying Australia Post in cooperating with their audit.
...
The offence was committed when you took money that belonged to Australia Post to pay business expenses. In effect, you robbed Peter to pay Paul. The offending came to light when Australia Post noticed a discrepancy between the amount of money electronically recorded as coming into the post office by a computer program called EPOS, electronic point of sale, and the amount collected by Armaguard.
The EPOS records a wallet figure being the amount which is secured in the office safe. And the Armaguard summary records the cash actually collected. So the discrepancy was picked up electronically and audit confirmed the deficiency. And in the course of the audit you admitted that you had used some of the cash that had come into your possession, that you were required to deliver up to Australia Post, to pay suppliers and other creditors in connection with the business.
The statement of Mr Harrison, the Australia Post auditor, gives an example of the discrepancy. On 21 September 2017, when the wallet figure was $28,000, Armaguard collected only $23,500, indicating a discrepancy of $4,500. The evidence in the brief shows how the total discrepancy of $26,047.56 was arrived at.
It can be observed from the evidence and the facts of this case that any discrepancy was likely to be detected by Australia Post computer checks as all money transactions were recorded, such that it was not likely that you could have got away with any systematic fraud.
And it's also to be observed that you did not take the money out of greed or to finance any gambling addiction or other personal interest, but to pay creditors including suppliers and Lotterywest.
This was not a sophisticated defalcation and it could not have gone undetected for long. To your credit, you were candid with the auditor, Mr Harrison and with the Australia Post Security Risk Advisor, Mr Speak.
There is no [suggestion] that the discrepancies that gave rise to the general deficiency were representative of any other unlawful conduct. Your offending involved a breach of trust in as much as you were contractually bound to secure the cash that was due to be collected on behalf of Australia Post[.]
The applicant has operated retail businesses since 2003 and purchased the Wattleup Newsagency and Post Office in 2007. The applicant gave evidence before the Tribunal that when he purchased the business he anticipated that the Wattleup Business Park would be developed. This did not occur and left his business reliant on passing trade.
In a letter provided to the District Court at the sentencing hearing, the applicant described his offending as follows (ts 14, 23 November 2018):
In October last year, I made a mistake while waiting for the bank as well as my family members to lend me some more funds to inject into the business. I made the mistake of utilising funds as an agent for Australia Post. I used their funds for a short period of time. I had never thought of doing this as stealing.
I never intended to steal anything from anyone. I've never stolen anything from anyone in my whole life. These funds were utilised to pay overheads and the moneys were fully repaid eight days later.
In deciding to impose a term of imprisonment of 10 months suspended for 12 months, his Honour stated (ts 15, 23 November 2018)]:
…
In the circumstances of this case, however, I consider that it would be inappropriate not to suspend the term. I do not agree with the suggestion made by the author of the pre‑sentence report that you require any programs to address the causes of your offending.
In my view, your offending can be explained by your being under particular financial pressure at the time of offending, and believing that you could ease that pressure by retaining some of the money belonging to Australia Post in the expectation that you would be able to repay it promptly.
Your culpability therefore is at a much lower level than many other cases of stealing by direction[.]

The applicant's contentions

The applicant's contentions may be summarised as follows:
1.The applicant is currently employed as a courier driver. The applicant seeks a T extension to gain employment within the mining sector as a bus driver. His main function would be to transport FIFO workers to and from regional airports and mine sites. The applicant's ultimate goal is to be employed by a mining company as a dump truck operator.
2.Other than the 2018 offence, the applicant has not committed any crimes.
3.The applicant's circumstances have changed in that he no longer runs the Wattleup Newsagency and Post Office. The Department is preventing the applicant from moving forward and taking positive steps to rectify his situation.
4.The 2018 offence was a crime of desperation by the applicant to keep his business afloat, not for personal gain or illegal activities such as gambling.
5.The applicant is remorseful and realises the seriousness of the 2018 offence. At the time of the offence the applicant did not understand that he had done anything wrong but he accepted the consequences and entered an early guilty plea. The money was paid back as quickly as possible (within eight days of the audit).
6.There has only been one conviction and not multiple convictions. The applicant contends that he has a better understanding of his actions and does not want his character tarnished again.
7.The applicant's employer, Techforce, and prospective employers are fully aware of his conviction.
8.To uphold the Department's decision would prevent the applicant from earning a living in his chosen field.

The Department's contentions

The Department's contentions may be summarised as follows:
1.The applicant is not of the requisite good character to hold a T extension. The Department's decision is the correct and preferable decision and should be upheld by the Tribunal.
2.The 2018 offence is extremely serious because it relates to an offence of dishonesty in respect of which a suspended term of imprisonment was imposed. It is also a recent conviction.
3.The Department is not satisfied that the applicant understands both the gravity of his offending and its nature having regard to material provided by the applicant in his internal review submission. Although the applicant had only been convicted on one charge, he had 'borrowed the money' over a sustained period of time, which indicates a propensity for dishonest behaviour. The applicant also stated in the submission that 90% of retailers would undertake 'money‑circulation' in the same way.
4.At the time the Department's contentions were prepared, the suspended sentence had not lapsed and, therefore, insufficient time had elapsed to serve to diminish the Department's concern about the applicant's character. The applicant also did not offer any mitigating circumstances for the offending other than the explanation that he was using the money to keep his business afloat.
5.The Tribunal must take into account the circumstances when the offence was committed and the interests of the public to be protected against a person who may not be of good character. Members of the public use public transport, such as taxis, in good faith and in the expectation that drivers are properly screened.
6.The T extension would allow the applicant to drive for hire and reward, both as an employee and in his own right. The applicant's employment cannot be subject to control by conditions imposed on the T/F extension.
7.There is significant doubt that the applicant would conduct himself in an appropriate manner at all times given the circumstances and gravity of the 2018 offence.
8.Financial hardship is not a factor that can be taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal's consideration

Regulation 12(7) of the Regulations requires that, in order to be granted a T extension, an applicant must be of 'good character'. Relevantly, reg 12(7) of the Regulations refers to 'good character' and not whether the applicant is 'fit and proper'. The Supreme Court of Western Australia considered the distinction between these two concepts in Mohamed v Director General ‑ Department of Transport [2010] WASC 375, which dealt with a decision by the Director General to cancel a T extension. Allanson J stated at [28]:
While 'good character' is frequently referred to as an aspect of whether a person is 'fit and proper' … it is not the same thing. An expression such as 'good character' must always be construed in the context of the particular legislation in which it occurs. … It refers, in essence, to notions of moral quality[.]
In Upton and Director General of Transport [2012] WASAT 63, the Tribunal reviewed a decision by the Director General to refuse an application for a T extension to a driver's licence on the ground that the applicant was not of good character. The Tribunal made the following statement about the notion of moral quality as it relates to 'good character' at [8]:
In considering the issue of good character in the vocational context, an applicant must show not only that they are possessed of a requisite degree of knowledge of the duties and responsibilities expected of them as the holder of the particular licence, but also that they possess sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character such that the public would accept them as suitably trustworthy to perform the duties which the relevant licence requires.
These principles were applied by the Tribunal in Chowdhury and Department of Transport [2012] WASAT 128 (Chowdhury), and Bekhit and Department of Transport [2016] WASAT 108. In Chowdhury, the Tribunal stated at [30]:
The moral qualities which lie at the heart of the concept of good character for the purposes of a T extension need to be of such a standard that they can never be any doubt that the holder of the licence will, at all times, conduct themselves appropriately while carrying a passenger.
In Costello and Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2009] WASAT 188, the Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision to revoke a T extension after the applicant was convicted of a drug offence. The Tribunal stated at [26]:
[T]he Tribunal must take into account the circumstances when the offence was committed and the interests of the public to be protected against persons who it has reason to believe may not be of good character[.]
The Department asserts that the applicant is not of good character because of his prior conviction for the 2018 offence. The relevance of convictions when making an assessment of character was considered by Wheeler JA in Tavelli v Johnson (unreported, WASC, Library No 960693, 25 November 1996) (Tavelli). Her Honour observed at [7] ‑ [8] that an offence will generally be regarded as more serious if it is one of dishonesty, broadly understood. An offence committed in the course of carrying out the relevant occupation or while the person was the holder of the relevant licence would also contribute to the seriousness of the offence. Finally, an offence may be so serious, either in itself or as representing a course of disregard for the law, as to reflect adversely on the character of the person committing it.
Factors that may indicate that a person is of good character notwithstanding previous convictions were outlined by Wheeler JA at [8] in Tavelli. In summary, these factors include:
(1)the person convicted demonstrates genuine remorse and contrition, true insight and understanding of the earlier turpitudes;
(2)the offences were committed a substantial time ago;
(3)any change in the person's circumstances from the time of the commission of the offence which indicates that the factors giving rise to the offence have been eliminated; and
(4)the person's character generally since the commission of the offence including lack of offending, age, family support, paid and voluntary work (with character references being of more value if they are made in full knowledge of the commission of the offence).
The Department contends that the applicant should not be granted a T extension because of the serious nature of the 2018 offence for which he was convicted, being an offence of dishonesty. The Department further contends that the applicant does not understand the gravity of his offending because of the statements he made in his internal review submission, including that he had borrowed the money over a sustained period of time, which indicates that the applicant has a propensity for dishonest behaviour. The applicant was sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment on 23 November 2018 and, therefore, the Department asserts that insufficient time has passed to diminish its concern about the applicant's character.
The Tribunal accepts that the 2018 offence committed by the applicant was one of dishonesty. The sentencing judge, however, considered the applicant's culpability to be at a much lower level than many other cases of stealing by direction. Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that the 2018 offence was committed by the applicant in the course of operating a newsagency business, it was not committed while the applicant was the holder of a T extension. Further, the Tribunal finds that the applicant's circumstances have changed from the time of the commission of the 2018 offence, in that the applicant no longer runs the newsagency (as a licensee for Australia Post) and, therefore, the factors giving rise to the offence have been eliminated.
The applicant has not been convicted of any offences since the 2018 offence. Although the length of time since the 2018 offence was committed is a relevant factor to be considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision, it is not determinative.
The granting of a T extension would enable the applicant to drive for hire and reward, both as an employee and in his own right. The Department contends that if the applicant were to drive passengers in his own right he would be dealing directly with the public and handling customer payments. The applicant gave evidence that he had operated a small business for over 15 years and dealt with customers in that capacity without any convictions. At the time of the 2018 offence at the Wattleup Newsagency and Post Office he had no employees and worked for himself five and half days a week. There was no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant had been the subject of customer complaints while operating the Wattleup Newsagency and Post Office. Therefore, it is difficult for the Tribunal to make a finding, having regard to the circumstances of the 2018 offence, that the applicant could not be trusted when dealing directly with the public.
Mr Jane, from Techforce, gave evidence at the hearing by telephone. When asked about the applicant's character, Mr Jane stated that the applicant has been completely transparent with him and informed him of the 2018 offence at interview. Mr Jane stated that Techforce had employed the applicant as a kitchen‑hand and a house‑keeper in the mining sector for a total of 28 days' work over the last two months without incident. He said that the applicant is always a pleasure to deal with and very respectable, and that his ideal goal is for the applicant to be retained by Techforce long‑term. Mr Jane is not aware of any problems with the applicant in respect of his work at the mine sites.
Mr Fernandes provided evidence to the Tribunal that he has always trusted the applicant and found him to be honest, genuine and of high integrity. Mr Fernandes first met the applicant around 20 years ago when Mr Fernandes was the State Manager for Henderson Greetings Pty Ltd. The company entered into a business agreement with the applicant when he was opening Harbourtown Newsagency. The company provided funds to the applicant in the sum of approximately $50,000 to assist with setting up the Harbourtown Newsagency. Mr Fernandes gave evidence that the funds were repaid by the applicant in full. Mr Fernandes has also had business dealings with the applicant in respect of subsequent newsagencies without issue.
The Tribunal observed the applicant give his evidence in a calm, controlled and forthright manner. Notwithstanding the challenging environment of a hearing, the applicant was polite and respectful to the opposing counsel, the representative from the Department and the Tribunal. He was never rude, abrupt or short tempered. The Tribunal finds that the applicant's personality traits, as exhibited at the hearing, are consistent with those that the public would expect to find in the holder of a T extension.
The District Court judge sentencing the applicant for the 2018 offence observed that while the applicant did not understand he had committed a crime he had demonstrated remorse for his actions. The applicant stated in evidence that he now understood what he had done was wrong and that it would not happen again. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has gained insight into his past offending and is sorry for it.
On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant possesses sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character that the public would accept him as suitably trustworthy to hold a T extension. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is of 'good character' for the purposes of reg 12(7)(c) of the Regulations.

Conclusion

Because the applicant no longer operates the Wattleup Newsagency and Post Office, the factors giving rise to the 2018 offence have been eliminated. Having regard to the circumstances that gave rise to the 2018 offence, the applicant's character and insight into his past offending, the Tribunal concludes that the correct and preferable decision is to grant the applicant a T extension to his driver's licence.

Orders

Upon review, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The application is allowed.
2.The respondent's decision dated 8 August 2019 to refuse the applicant's extension T endorsement to Driver's Licence 3786481 is set aside and a decision is substituted granting an extension T endorsement to Driver's Licence 3786481 under reg 12 of the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Regulations 2014 (WA).

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS C BARTON, MEMBER
23 JANUARY 2020